Intel promises optical Thunderbolt cables will arrive later this year
Intel said on Monday that optical cables for its Thunderbolt port are scheduled to arrive later this year and will allow for longer cables and eventually faster speeds.
The world's largest chipmaker issued a statement on Monday confirming its plans to release the new cables this year, IDG News Service reports. Current Thunderbolt cables utilize copper with a maximum effective length of six meters.
Intel spokesman Dave Salvador told the publication that optical cables will support data transfers over distances of tens of meters. As the technology develops, they will also make broader bandwidth a possibility. However, one downside to the optical cables is that connected devices will require their own power supplies.
The current generation of copper Thunderbolt cables can provide up to 10 watts of power, but power over longer optical cables would suffer from an "impedance-induced power drop," according to the report.
Intel declined to provide more detailed timing on when the new cables will arrive and how much they will cost. First-generation Thunderbolt ports will, however, be compatible with the new optical cables.
Last week, the chipmaker indicated that it intends to support the PCI-Express 3.0 protocol. Thunderbolt currently works with PCI-Express 2.0 technology. PCIe 3.0 is capable of moving data at 8 giga transfers per second, a step up from the 5 gigatransfers per second speed of PCIe 2.0.
Intel and Apple released Thunderbolt little more than a year ago with the unveiling of the Early 2011 MacBook Pro. The technology couples Intel's work on a "Light Peak" optical connector with Apple's Mini DisplayPort standard to achieve two channels of 10Gbps transfers in both directions, simultaneously.
Apple added Thunderbolt to most of its Mac lineup throughout 2011. Available Thunderbolt accessories have remained relatively sparse, though. The company released a Thunderbolt Display last July and several external drive options (1, 2) exist for the technology.
Apple's official $49 Thunderbolt cable was released last June. It measures 2 meters in length and can connect two Thunderbolt-equipped Macs. A subsequent teardown of the cable revealed that it implements transceivers at either end of the cable to improve reliability when transferring data at high speeds.
Teardown of Apple's $49 Thunderbolt Cable | Source:iFixit
PC makers are expected to introduce Thunderbolt-equipped Ultrabooks in the second quarter of this year. Acer, Asustek and Lenovo and been named as vendors interested in implementing the I/O. Lenovo has already announced Thunderbolt-equipped Thinkpad laptops that will be released later this year.
[ View article on AppleInsider ]
Comments
Seems Like it took forever for USB 3 to be integrated into PC's. USB 2 was the standard forever. Now that Intel and Apple have released the Thunder Bolt interface it seems better than USB 3 but I wonder how integrated it will be in a year. How many external Hard Drives will come with the interface compared to USB 3?
Thunderbolt and USB 3.0 will be integrated into Ivy Bridge due out shortly. That's a plus, except that AMD and ARM can't support Thunderbolt. Still, not a big deal as Intel dominates the PC market. Plus USB and Thunderbolt don't really compete too much, especially not for an optical version of Thunderbolt. I will be surprised if Apple doesn't include USB 3.0 in their Ivy Bridge Macs.
USB 2 was the standard forever.
Especially when most of the products were actually USB 1.1 being marketed as 2.0.
Thunderbolt and USB 3.0 will be integrated into Ivy Bridge due out shortly.
Not seeing that happening for thunderbolt: Anandtech : Upcoming 7-Series Motherboards
Whatever happened to I esata taking over external hard drives?
Seems Like it took forever for USB 3 to be integrated into PC's. USB 2 was the standard forever. Now that Intel and Apple have released the Thunder Bolt interface it seems better than USB 3 but I wonder how integrated it will be in a year. How many external Hard Drives will come with the interface compared to USB 3?
I really don't think people get it, Thundebolt isn't and never was designed to compete with USB. The cost differential alone kills that idea. In the case of a magnetic hard drive why would you even bother with TB, the transfer rates of these drives are no where that fast that they would benefit.
It has been pretty clear that Apples goal with TB is a higher level of functionality. The idea being one cable to connect to a monitor / dock combo delivering a bunch of slower peripheral features. Or to implement advance storage concepts like RAID arrays where the speed can be used.
In the end looking at these two interfaces as competitors is foolish even if a few marketing gurus will try too.
I really don't think people get it, Thundebolt isn't and never was designed to compete with USB. The cost differential alone kills that idea. In the case of a magnetic hard drive why would you even bother with TB, the transfer rates of these drives are no where that fast that they would benefit.
It has been pretty clear that Apples goal with TB is a higher level of functionality. The idea being one cable to connect to a monitor / dock combo delivering a bunch of slower peripheral features. Or to implement advance storage concepts like RAID arrays where the speed can be used.
In the end looking at these two interfaces as competitors is foolish even if a few marketing gurus will try too.
That about sums it up. Where is USB 3 on Macs? I'm not interested in Thunderbolt due to the expense.
Not seeing that happening for thunderbolt: Anandtech : Upcoming 7-Series Motherboards
Apparently, there was a misunderstanding somewhere along the line. While early reports said that Thunderbolt would be included at the chip level, Intel now says it will not:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4406/c...not-integrated
It will therefore be up to the motherboard manufacturer to add it or not. So far, I know that Acer, Asustek, and MSI have announced that they will be including Thunderbolt in at least some models.
That about sums it up. Where is USB 3 on Macs? I'm not interested in Thunderbolt due to the expense.
Really? Why don't you tell us exactly what Thunderbolt costs, then.
Really? Why don't you tell us exactly what Thunderbolt costs, then.
$50 cables. $450 drives. When USB 3 would suffice and be much cheaper. Or am I missing something?
Thundebolt isn't and never was designed to compete with USB.
Says who?
The cost differential alone kills that idea.
Yeah, USB never cost more than it does now.
In the end looking at these two interfaces as competitors is foolish
So what happens when Apple drops all legacy ports in favor of Thunderbolt, then?
$50 cables. $450 drives. When USB 3 would suffice and be much cheaper. Or am I missing something?
Yes. You're missing the fact that electronics devices always start out expensive and come down in price as they become more popular.
You're also missing the fact that USB is significantly inferior to Thunderbolt in a number of ways.
Yes. You're missing the fact that electronics devices always start out expensive and come down in price as they become more popular.
That's what I was hearing 18 months ago and yet Thunderbolt is still expensive and unpopular. How many years will it take? Will it ever take off or will there be something else new and expensive before it does?
I don't doubt that Thunderbolt is superior to USB. But I think it'll be a long time until I ever use it for anything, even though two of my Macs have Thunderbolt ports. Meanwhile, it would be nice to have a USB 3 port.
That's what I was hearing 18 months ago and yet USB is still expensive and unpopular. How many years will it take?
Your real complaint stems from Apple's unwillingness to pull a G3 iMac and kill off every other port when they released Thunderbolt.
Your real complaint stems from Apple's unwillingness to pull a G3 iMac and kill off every other port when they released Thunderbolt.
Huh?
Huh?
Apple didn't push Thunderbolt the way they pushed USB. Had they, we'd've seen hundreds of Thunderbolt accessories by now.
Apple made the mistake of relying on Intel to do it, and if Intel doesn't FORCE every other computer manufacturer to include at least one Thunderbolt port on all of their motherboards, it's doomed and it will be entirely Intel's fault.
That's what I was hearing 18 months ago and yet Thunderbolt is still expensive and unpopular.
1) Thunderbolt hasn't been known to the world on the market for 18 months.
2) It's only now getting to the point that PC vendors other than Apple can utilize it.
3) As we witnessed at CES other PC makers are very interested in Thunderbolt.
4) USB 1.0 was introduced in January 1996. What was its spread as January 1997?
$50 cables. $450 drives. When USB 3 would suffice and be much cheaper. Or am I missing something?
i bought $49 Apple cable and for $1850 a 12TB Pegasus RAID array to connecct to a Mac Mini Server and the combination is the fastest drives I have ever used - the major limitation in my cases is that the Mini has only 1 ethernet port - unless I somehow got my local machinies to connet vai WiFi....
while it is possible that I am not using the full potential of the products - I hae no concern that as my demands on the system grow that it will keep up with me.
and I do use the gear for billable work and services so it will pay for itself in less than 2 years - perhaps even less than 1 year.
Apple didn't push Thunderbolt the way they pushed USB. Had they, we'd've seen hundreds of Thunderbolt accessories by now.
In 1998, there was a real need for a better connection standard; not so today. I think it would be a mistake for Apple to abandon the long established USB in favor of Thunderbolt. I'm not opposed to Apple providing TB ports for the 2% (and growing?) of the population that might currently use it. And it's handy how it has replaced mini-DisplayPort for monitors. USB 3 would be far more useful for most people and peripherals, IMO. Macs already have USB ports, so why not upgrade them to V3?
I've been a big proponent of Firewire for years, as was Apple. How did that work out? Not so well.